On the record in this case, the District Court erred in denying a writ of habeas corpus without a plenary hearing.

When an application by a state prisoner to a Federal Court for a writ of habeas corpus alleges facts which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, the Federal Court to which the application is made has the power to receive evidence and try the facts anew. TOWNSEND V. SAIN, 372 U.S. 310-312-318.

Where the facts are in dispute, the Federal District Court must grant an evidentiary hearing if (1) the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the state hearing, either at the time of the trial or in a collateral proceeding; (2) the state factual determination is not fairly supported by the record as a whole; (3) the fact finding procedure employed by the State Court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing; (4) there is a substantial allegation of newly discovered evidence; (5) the material facts were not adequately developed at the State Court hearing; or (6) for any reason it appears that the state trier of fact did not afford the applicant a full and fair fact hearing. ELLIS V. UNITED STATES, 313 F.3d at 641.

In this case, the District Court erred in holding that petitioner does not identify any new, reliable evidence of his actual innocence; i.e., exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence that was not available to him at the time of his underlying criminal proceedings.

Petitioner presented the District Court with a Subpoena that was not available to him at the time of his underlying criminal proceeding in support of his actual innocence claim. (See Subpoena #875611; Doc#: 15-1, at 287, 290-292).

The question presented is whether the District Court erred in denying petitioner's actual innocence claim.

(1) Does a defendant in a criminal proceeding have a constitutional right pursuant to Section 10, Article I, of the Ohio/United States Constitutions Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to have adequate notice of the true nature and cause of the accusation against him as to afford him an opportunity to defend the allegations made against him in a criminal complaint pursuant to Crim.R.3, and Crim.R.5 (A)(1) at the initial stage of the proceeding.

Petitioner was not adequately notified of the true nature and cause of the accusation against him at the initial stage of the proceeding on August 30, 2012, preventing him from having an opportunity to confront his accuser(s) face-to-face under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, citing CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 17 (2004). See Transcript filed August 30, 2013.

(2) After a defendant has been taken into custody, or deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way does he have a constitutional right to be informed of his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, privilege against self-incrimination and right to retained or appointed counsel in the face of interrogation. (Tr. 585-588) See, e.g. [1964] Crim.L.Rev., at 166-170 (Tr. 594).

The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of

Whether the District Court erred in denying petitioner's actual-innocence claim